Please Don't Understand Me: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Please Don't Understand Me » Please Don't Understand Me

Please Don't Understand Me

Page: 1 2

Please Don't Understand Me

ying
I ♥ Scepticism

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1485

Posted 04/26/07 - 06:14 AM:	#11
Tobias wrote: Too easy distinction. What I don't see is how the form content distinction is valid. I also don't see how a conscous / subconscous divide is valid. To know we have a subconscous we have to be conscous of it, which in effect is contary to the whole definition of subconscous. Sure there are things that I don't realise myself, but to call these 'subconscous' ... It is like calling phenomena in the world which we haven't experienced yet 'inexperiencable'. Ever had repressed traumatic experiences with irrational affective charges being experienced at the most inconvenient times? Ever had thoughts you didn't want to think? If not, then I suggest you go visit the nearest mental hospital, and see the consequences for yourself. And one can't be conscious of ones unconscious, but it's possible to have an intellectual understanding of those matters, as an intellectual understanding isn't actually being conscious. I suggest reading Brentano's Psychology from an empirical standpoint, starting at page 102 (Routledge edition, same kinds of objections you're making). Also read Jung on the personal and collective unconscious. He talks about those things throughout his work; it's not what Brentano is talking about. Jung has been proven on those accounts by neurology, as there actually are neurological equivalents to instinctive behaviour (collective unconscious) and mental tensions created by repressed traumatic experiences (personal unconscious). A good neurologist can actually see those things from an fmri scan, you know... Sidenote: The Conscious (consciousness is the perceiving agent, the conscious is a mental region), due to it's intentional properties actually is about content. Phenomenology can only be valid if we have access to our subconscious, in othrer words, when we do away with the term entirely. regards Tobi Sub-conscious, as in, below our consciousness threshold, or a priori trancendental, as in pre-conscious? Edited by ying on 04/26/07 - 06:44 AM
*"I determined nothing."* -Sceptical expression

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.